The answer to your question, Tom, is "yes, it does." If someone has
more than the allowed number of unrelated people living together under
the ordinance that was passed Monday night, that household can seek a
C.U.P. to obtain approval for the extra renters.
And I would suggest to the alleged protecters of "property rights" who
opposed this ordinance, the Greater Moscow Alliance among them, that
the ordinance does exactly that, by protecting the property rights of
the neighbors to these "boarding houses" in low density residential
neighborhoods that were not experiencing the low density uses to which
they were entitled under the code -- due to commercial, high density,
apartment/boarding house-style uses that were foisted on the
neighborhood by those bringing in numerous renters.
There is a pattern developing in the issues to which the GMA takes an
interest: the defense of property rights for a few,often at the
expense of the property rights of the many, and all too frequently at
the expense of our quality of life. The property rights
advocates at the GMA that opposed this ordinance also failed to
oppose both Proposition 2 and the Naylor Farms conditional use permit
application last fall, while they opposed any regulation of big box
stores in the large retail store ordinance (which imposed reasonable
regulations on parking lot size, screening and lanscaping, sign
size, and other similar regulations on big boxes). The GMA
property rights zealots fail to recognize that we passed a zoning
code in this town that reasonably and constitutionally regulates
property rights in part to prevent neighbors from ruining the value
and enjoyment of adjoining parcels through unfettered infringing uses
that spill over onto the property of others.
The zoning code gives all of us the benefit of predictability; in
enacting the zoning code we surrendered the abilityto use property in
a particular zoning category for certain uses that are not allowed,
in return for the security of knowing that our neighbors could not use
their adjoining property in the same zone for those same disallowed
uses. When people push the limits of reason, straining credulity in
asserting that the code does not distinguish low density,
single-family residences from a commercial boarding house with a
single family plus numbers of additional renters,
restoration/clarification of the zoning code's intent and purpose was
entirely appropriate. By passing a definition of a family that
addresses the number of unrelated people who may live in a single
family residence without obtaining a conditional use permit, sanity
returned to our neighborhoods and the quality of life in those
neighborhoods was preserved and enhanced.
I commend the four votes for the ordinance, Pall, Ament, Lamar and
Craine. Hopefully, in time both Weber and Lambertwill reconsider
their opposition to the ordinance.
In the meantime, without regard to the effects on our community's
water supply or the adjoining neighbor's property, the GMA failed to
oppose the operation of (a) the Naylor's proposed strip mine
and (b) a crowded boarding house with many additional people or cars
in a low density residential neighborhood, while the GMA did oppose
(c) an ordinance that sought to regulate garish 24-hour big
boxes with inadequate screening and landscaping. Defending the
"property rights" for the few, without regard to related,
associated trampling on the property rights of others, is not the
sort of "protection" of private property rights that this town needs.
Bruce Livingston
-----Original message-----
From: Tom Ivie the_ivies3 at yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:41:57 -0700
To: Moscow Vision 2020 vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Say What?Discrimination
> My original question wasn't answered, if anyone wants to field it.
"Doesn't this include a CUP process?
>> Donovan Arnold wrote: Tom Ivie,
>> Lowering the number of occupants per housing unit by law increases
demand for more apartments and housing units, driving the cost up.
With rents up even more, renters are further soaked again by limiting
the number of people they can split rent with.
>> Moscow is a college town. Students cannot afford much more that $300
piece for rent. IF Moscow raises its rents, the number of students
returning to UI will reduce because they cannot afford to live in the
city with no jobs and unaffordable housing. Many of them will elect
elsewhere to attend like BSU, Albertson, NNU, ISU, LCSC or the new
junior college in Nampa. But this is a good move for the socialists
agenda of destroying the Moscow economy through relentless
unneededgovernment regulation.
>> Best,
>> Donovan
>> Tom Ivie wrote:
> Doesn't it include a CUP process? As I understand it, and I could be
wrong, lowering the number brings Moscow more in-line with the
codified number that the majority of cities our size use.
>> Donovan Arnold wrote: "These three people [(Pall, Ament and Lamar)]
feel that counting unrelated people in a
> dwelling will solve noise and parking problems in residential
> neighborhoods."
>> Mr. Busch is correct on this point. I think counting the number of
unrelated people is discriminatory. When I worked at Inclusion North
there were often several people with disabilities living in one home
because they cannot afford their own place on a $660 a month SSI
check, especially in a city like Moscow. There are many poor,
disabled, and elderly people thatMUST live together in one dwelling
for economic survival. This code is a raw deal for those that are in
need of affordable housing. Another example of elitist socialists
trying to make everyone live like them regardless of their financial
situations. The City Council members are saying, "Let them eat cake",
or in this case, let them live in an apartment with only two people if
they can only afford to live in an apartment with four others.
>> And on the other side of the coin, a family of two adults with two
teenagers can be very noisy and make life for their neighbors
intolerable. Why not limit how many teenagers can live in one
household, or how many babies a single mom can have? It would be just
as unfair.
>> An unjust law, clearly invented by people living in nice homes with
secure incomes. I hope the newly elected city council will reverse
this piece of discrimination.
>> If Moscow would allow for the building ofaffordable housing for what
people actually earn in Moscow we would not have 5 students or 5
people on SSI living in one housing unit. And BTW, Moscow has more
people per housing unit then any other city in the state according the
BLS.
>> Best,
>> Donovan
>>>> Tom Hansen wrote:
> In a letter to the editor of the Lewiston Tribune, published today
> (September 16, 2007), Steve Busch suggests that "enforcing existing
law
> [Moscow Zoning Code] is all that is necessary."
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> Comments made in a letter to the editor authored by local attorney
Jack
> Porter and published in the Sept. 12 Lewiston Tribune cannot be
ignored. On
> Sept. 4, the current city council voted 3-2 to change Moscow's city
code in
> an attempt to deal with a real problem.
>> Unfortunately, the majority (Pall, Ament and Lamar) threw the baby
out with
> the bath water. These three people feel that counting unrelated
people in a
> dwelling will solve noise and parking problems in residential
neighborhoods.
>>> The Greater Moscow Alliance feel enforcing existing law is all that
is
> necessary. We said so in a letter presented to the council on Sept.
10 (to
> see a copy visit www.greatermoscow.org). Mr. Porter thinks this is
evidence
> the GMA is insensitive to Moscow citizens' cherished life style.
Nothing
> could be further from the truth. GMA is working hard to educate the
public
> about issues and candidates.
>> I urge all Moscow voters to ask candidates for city council tough
questions.
> Listen carefully to the answers and vote your conscience.
>> Steve Busch
> President
> Greater MoscowAlliance
> Moscow
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> Questions, Mr. Busch: How often, and how selective, should
enforcement of
> zoning codes be enforced? Instead of amending the current code ad
nauseam
> and allowing for conditional use permits every time somebody
violates
> "existing law", should we draw the proverbial line in the sand, much
like
> the Raven, strongly proclaim "Ne'er more", and further demand that
those
> entities that are currently in violation of the zoning code move
elsewhere?
>> Reminder, folks!
>http://tinyurl.com/36ghxk>> Seeya round town, Moscow.
>> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>> "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The
college
> students are not very active in local elections (thankgoodness!)."
>> - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
>>>> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>http://www.fsr.net> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> =======================================================
>>> ---------------------------------
> Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>http://www.fsr.net> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> =======================================================
>>>> Tom & Liz Ivie
> ---------------------------------
>Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo!
Autos. =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>http://www.fsr.net> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> =======================================================
>>> ---------------------------------
> Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the
hottest shows on Yahoo! TV.
>>> Tom & Liz Ivie
>> ---------------------------------
> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
> Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at
Yahoo! Games.
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070918/a861e364/attachment-0001.html